The first 100 days of Bernard Grech in office: did he check his sources well?

Second Article

Throughout his campaign, Dr Grech has stated that there will be no hard feelings and everyone would be welcomed back into the Party. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. It now transpires clearly from the actions taken during these first 100 days that he has failed to achieve unity within the party. The first 100 days have passed and the honeymoon period is over. This should have been the timeframe within which these issues should have been tackled. This is one of the reasons why there is already talk within the party regarding who could be the next leader after the next general election.

At first, many said let’s give Bernard Grech time. But although 100 days have elapsed, there doesn’t seem to be any light at the end of the tunnel. Right from the start, Dr Grech should have understood whether there were any taboos that needed to be broken. He should have realised who are the important stakeholders and who might have hidden agendas. More importantly, he should have already established clear objectives.

Did Dr Grech not realize, when collating information, that there was a constant risk of being misled by distorted information. He should have understood that people around him may have ulterior motives such as protecting their own territory, obtaining a post and/or influencing decisions to fit their own personal agendas. There were those who were testing him as he was a new to the job not excluding also those who sought to please him by telling him what he wanted to hear.

The questions to be asked here are the following.

Did Dr Grech consider it essential to ensure that all the information he was receiving was being verified through different sources?

Has he ever consulted individuals of the previous guard so that he would know what had happened to the previous incumbent?

Has he ever consulted his vice-deputies to find out what went on in the previous years?

Has he ever discussed anything with those MPs, who campaigned for his opponent, to learn their views?

If any of these replies is in the negative, then Dr Grech is in for a rough ride.

The negative in these replies can only mean one thing. Dr Grech did not win credibility within his own group. If he didn’t get very important feedback from both sides of the coin, he is destined to take irrational decisions. Now he has to be careful. He is no longer a campaigner. He is the man at the top. He should avoid the grievous mistakes he committed during the leadership campaign when he changed his position on abortion three times. Changing positions would not be appreciated by the electorate. Any politician, who is not consistent with his positions, whether it was Mintoff, who changed his position from Integration to Independence, or Delia on the issue of migration, is destined to suffer at the hands of the electorate.

One comment

  1. Bernard Grech jidher li mbarazza iill-PN anke dwar il-mina bejn Malta u Ghawdex. Dwar ‘il-U-turn’ ta’ Mintoff mintix korrett ghal kollxo. Mintoff dejjem kien car, jew integration bl-istess kundizzjonijiet kollha li jgawdu minnhom l-Inglizi, jew Indipendenza. Meta ma l-Gvern Ingliz ma tahx dak li ried, Mintoff mar ghall-Indipendenza u min isegwi l-istorja jaf li l-glieda ghamlha wahdu, anke jekk ir-rizultat ahhari ma kienx dak li xtaq hu.

Leave a Reply